kinsta_plugins_bulk-updateUpdate multiple WordPress plugins at once in a Kinsta environment by supplying the environment ID and plugin slugs. Returns an operation ID to track the update.
Update multiple plugins to their latest versions at once. Returns an operation_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env_id | Yes | The environment ID | |
| plugins | Yes | Plugins to update, identified by name/slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation openWorldHint=true already signals that this tool mutates state. The description adds that it returns an operation_id, implying an asynchronous operation, but doesn't elaborate on side effects, reversibility, or how to track progress. Since annotations cover the mutation aspect, the description provides modest additional context but not rich behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and return value. No wasted words; every element is relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only two required parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states what happens (update plugins), the return (operation_id), and implies asynchronous handling. It could mention polling via operations_status, but that is not essential for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions (env_id and plugins with name/slug). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond stating the action. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update multiple plugins to their latest versions at once') with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from single-plugin update via the 'multiple' and 'at once' phrasing. It also notes the return value (operation_id), which clarifies the expected outcome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling kinsta_plugins_update (single plugin). It is implied that bulk is for multiple plugins, but the description doesn't state selection criteria or alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.